Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[earthworm]

Oh, sorry. Did you not realise that the pact won't ACTUALLY be going ahead?
It could have been really useful, but now i've had to spell it all, it would be much more easily abused by scum. Of course, i still feel the discussion of it has been very interesting, and certainly beats the random stage any day!
BM

... so you're telling me those fifty posts of debate were over something you didn't actually have any hope for?

Anyway, I dont really want to address everything thats happened in the 4+ pages I missed, but I've read it all, so if theres anything in specific you or someone else wants me to respond to or explain, I'll do so.

I also predict that there will be a vote on me when the game starts for not wanting discussion in the confirmation stage and talking during it anyway.

Now that I've seen what discussion in the pre-game leads to, I wish I'd listened to you

[cris150]

maybe the pact thingie could be saved for later... when we form some opinions about each other... if the pact is controlled better it could really work and help at scumhunting

(btw i will be out of town the next three days, the last time when i would check the forum would be tomorrow morning probably... i think i'll return wednesday)

[PeterGriffin]

i can totally respect this view. Out of interest, what do you think about Untitled so far this game?

BM

Untitled is interesting. In his first two posts he almost seems to be trying to stifle discussion by dismissing the amount contributed to the game thus far out of hand- "somebody wake me when we're actually playing the game.", although, to be fair, a lot of the first three pages was just a couple people arguing about the treaty. Then he randomly states that he wishes to vote for Battle Mage, somebody he hadn't even commented on earlier in the game. When pressed for reasoning, he simply says that you're annoying and will be a distraction, which isn't really particularly good reason to vote somebody, even this early in the game. We need to be lynching the scummy people, not the annoying ones.

Untitled then says that you aren't responding to his points, which seems to be totally untrue to me, considering that in his post he

quoted the response where you responded to his argument.

Now, is it possible that he was confused by the post and thought that you didn't respond to his points? Yes. Do I find it likely, not really. Seems like a potentially legitimate scumtell, and I'd reccomend keeping an eye on him. At the moment however, there's another player that's bugging me even more.

I dunno whats going on right now i think the treaty is useless because shouldnt we be scum hunting anyway.

MafiaMann, here are your other two posts.

BM my concern is scum can be in this and that would lead to a lot of troubles for the town.

/confirm

The first post provides no content, the second comments on the treaty, which you dismiss as "useless" in your third post. Therefore, you shouldn't be commenting on scumhunting, considering that not only is
A. The discussion and reaction towards the treaty likely going to help us catch scum,
B. If scum were on the treaty, their behavior on it could have helped us catch scum.

The treaty is an important issue, and you simply, like other players, make an attempt to stifle the current discussion by saying that we should be "scumhunting", when you haven't even put out the energy to scumhunt yourself. Don't be a hypocrite.

Major FOS: MafiaMann

[Battle Mage]

Oh, sorry. Did you not realise that the pact won't ACTUALLY be going ahead?
It could have been really useful, but now i've had to spell it all, it would be much more easily abused by scum. Of course, i still feel the discussion of it has been very interesting, and certainly beats the random stage any day!
BM

... so you're telling me those fifty posts of debate were over something you didn't actually have any hope for?

Anyway, I dont really want to address everything thats happened in the 4+ pages I missed, but I've read it all, so if theres anything in specific you or someone else wants me to respond to or explain, I'll do so.

I had hope. It just gradually faded away as we broke what could've been a great ploy, into something so transparent that it would have very little chance of being successful. It's the way it goes. I really don't see the merit in pushing it any further, when it has been dragged out for so long. This is the exact reason i support spontaneity in towns, and why i wanted a voting block in the first place. If people are too afraid to make a small risk in order to gain a massive reward, then we miss alot of great opportunities to really take the game in our hands.

BM

[Battle Mage]

maybe the pact thingie could be saved for later... when we form some opinions about each other... if the pact is controlled better it could really work and help at scumhunting

(btw i will be out of town the next three days, the last time when i would check the forum would be tomorrow morning probably... i think i'll return wednesday)

No, i don't think so. Another time, another place. Another GAME. But i'm happy to say that this was not a wasted exercise- and we haven't left the random stage yet, so it's not like we've even lost TIME.

BM

[Battle Mage]

i can totally respect this view. Out of interest, what do you think about Untitled so far this game?

BM

Untitled is interesting. In his first two posts he almost seems to be trying to stifle discussion by dismissing the amount contributed to the game thus far out of hand- "somebody wake me when we're actually playing the game."

While i think about it, it also exhibits a willingness to lynch, as a priority over discussion. Which is scummy.

At the moment however, there's another player that's bugging me even more.

I dunno whats going on right now i think the treaty is useless because shouldnt we be scum hunting anyway.

MafiaMann, here are your other two posts.

BM my concern is scum can be in this and that would lead to a lot of troubles for the town.

/confirm

The first post provides no content, the second comments on the treaty, which you dismiss as "useless" in your third post. Therefore, you shouldn't be commenting on scumhunting, considering that not only is
A. The discussion and reaction towards the treaty likely going to help us catch scum,
B. If scum were on the treaty, their behavior on it could have helped us catch scum.

The treaty is an important issue, and you simply,

like other players

, make an attempt to stifle the current discussion by saying that we should be "scumhunting", when you haven't even put out the energy to scumhunt yourself. Don't be a hypocrite.

Major FOS: MafiaMann

Your points here are completely valid. But, i'm not totally convinced, partly because of the part highlighted by me, in italics. MafiaMann is not the only player not really contributing at this point, and i dont find his posts ESPECIALLY scummy. The worst thing is that he is blatantly paddling easier answers, but again, he is not the only one to do this.
One to watch? definitely. One to focus on specifically atm? probably not.

Also, Peter (do you mind if i abbreviated your name to that?) - how many other games are you currently in, in the New York Forum?

BM

[Untitled]

i can totally respect this view. Out of interest, what do you think about Untitled so far this game?

BM

Untitled is interesting. In his first two posts he almost seems to be trying to stifle discussion by dismissing the amount contributed to the game thus far out of hand- "somebody wake me when we're actually playing the game.", although, to be fair, a lot of the first three pages was just a couple people arguing about the treaty. Then he randomly states that he wishes to vote for Battle Mage, somebody he hadn't even commented on earlier in the game. When pressed for reasoning, he simply says that you're annoying and will be a distraction, which isn't really particularly good reason to vote somebody, even this early in the game. We need to be lynching the scummy people, not the annoying ones.

Untitled then says that you aren't responding to his points, which seems to be totally untrue to me, considering that in his post he

quoted the response where you responded to his argument.

Now, is it possible that he was confused by the post and thought that you didn't respond to his points? Yes. Do I find it likely, not really. Seems like a potentially legitimate scumtell, and I'd reccomend keeping an eye on him.

well he obviously fooled you. for one thing, I said that he'd be a detriment to scumhunting if he continued to act this way once the game started, and he responded as if I'd said that he'd been a detriment to scumhunting already. also, he passed off laughing at getting people riled as simply having a sense of humour, when my point was that he seemed to be doing it deliberately for his own amusement. his response was close enough to my point to pass a cursory inspection, but it was slanted to present a viewpoint that favoured him.

[Battle Mage]

i can totally respect this view. Out of interest, what do you think about Untitled so far this game?

BM

Untitled is interesting. In his first two posts he almost seems to be trying to stifle discussion by dismissing the amount contributed to the game thus far out of hand- "somebody wake me when we're actually playing the game.", although, to be fair, a lot of the first three pages was just a couple people arguing about the treaty. Then he randomly states that he wishes to vote for Battle Mage, somebody he hadn't even commented on earlier in the game. When pressed for reasoning, he simply says that you're annoying and will be a distraction, which isn't really particularly good reason to vote somebody, even this early in the game. We need to be lynching the scummy people, not the annoying ones.

Untitled then says that you aren't responding to his points, which seems to be totally untrue to me, considering that in his post he

quoted the response where you responded to his argument.

Now, is it possible that he was confused by the post and thought that you didn't respond to his points? Yes. Do I find it likely, not really. Seems like a potentially legitimate scumtell, and I'd reccomend keeping an eye on him.

well he obviously fooled you. for one thing, I said that he'd be a detriment to scumhunting if he continued to act this way once the game started, and he responded as if I'd said that he'd been a detriment to scumhunting already.

That was a joke, because, even though it's early days, i think so far, i've been the most keenly participating player. I'm getting discussion going, and guess what, it's working. You haven't explained your views atall, and seem to think that because you say something, it is true, and everybody stops and pays you heed. It doesn't work like that. You can't just say somebody will be a detriment to the town, and consider it a scumtell. God knows, i could say the same thing about Armlx and Nhat. But if i'm honest, they are both competent players, and will both be valuable to the game. I'll certainly give them a chance before i condemn them. And i WON'T see them lynched because i dont always get on well with them.
As far as i'm concerned, the game HAS started. Am i being a detriment yet? No? Please explain yourself further.

also, he passed off laughing at getting people riled as simply having a sense of humour, when my point was that he seemed to be doing it deliberately for his own amusement.

It's comments like this, that i either laugh at, or get irate about. But, as you have a problem with me trying to ENJOY a game, i'll try the other approach. Simply put, when people make stupid arguments with me, I get irate too. Why do you not take this into consideration? Because you don't actually care about how i feel, and unsurprisingly, the feeling is mutual. Bringing personal feeling into the game is pointless, and you certainly can't apply it to one side and not the other. BUT, if getting people riled up invokes reactions, which it often will, then it is a GOOD thing. I hadn't really said anything to you when you decided to take up a personal vendetta against me. Why is that?

his response was close enough to my point to pass a cursory inspection, but it was slanted to present a viewpoint that favoured him.

I dont really understand this. Can you put it into different words?

BM

[PeterGriffin]

Untitled is interesting. In his first two posts he almost seems to be trying to stifle discussion by dismissing the amount contributed to the game thus far out of hand- "somebody wake me when we're actually playing the game."

While i think about it, it also exhibits a willingness to lynch, as a priority over discussion. Which is scummy.

Very fair point.

At the moment however, there's another player that's bugging me even more.

I dunno whats going on right now i think the treaty is useless because shouldnt we be scum hunting anyway.

MafiaMann, here are your other two posts.

BM my concern is scum can be in this and that would lead to a lot of troubles for the town.

/confirm

The first post provides no content, the second comments on the treaty, which you dismiss as "useless" in your third post. Therefore, you shouldn't be commenting on scumhunting, considering that not only is
A. The discussion and reaction towards the treaty likely going to help us catch scum,
B. If scum were on the treaty, their behavior on it could have helped us catch scum.

The treaty is an important issue, and you simply,

like other players

, make an attempt to stifle the current discussion by saying that we should be "scumhunting", when you haven't even put out the energy to scumhunt yourself. Don't be a hypocrite.

Major FOS: MafiaMann

Your points here are completely valid. But, i'm not totally convinced, partly because of the part highlighted by me, in italics. MafiaMann is not the only player not really contributing at this point, and i dont find his posts ESPECIALLY scummy. The worst thing is that he is blatantly paddling easier answers, but again, he is not the only one to do this.
One to watch? definitely. One to focus on specifically atm? probably not.

Meh, I can see where you're coming from. There's just something about his posts that I really don't like. I think it's also the fact that he's commented on the treaty, when he says in his latest post is pointless since "we should be scumhunting", making him a double-hypocrite.

[Also, Peter (do you mind if i abbreviated your name to that?) - how many other games are you currently in, in the New York Forum?

BM

None.

[Battle Mage]

Ok, i just wondered. Because, one of the benefits of having no life, and watching this game all day, is that i can see when people are online and viewing the thread. And i noticed you on ALOT, without posting. Of course, reading quietly isn't a crime. Just thought i'd mention it, to set a precedent.

BM

[PeterGriffin]

i can totally respect this view. Out of interest, what do you think about Untitled so far this game?

BM

Untitled is interesting. In his first two posts he almost seems to be trying to stifle discussion by dismissing the amount contributed to the game thus far out of hand- "somebody wake me when we're actually playing the game.", although, to be fair, a lot of the first three pages was just a couple people arguing about the treaty. Then he randomly states that he wishes to vote for Battle Mage, somebody he hadn't even commented on earlier in the game. When pressed for reasoning, he simply says that you're annoying and will be a distraction, which isn't really particularly good reason to vote somebody, even this early in the game. We need to be lynching the scummy people, not the annoying ones.

Untitled then says that you aren't responding to his points, which seems to be totally untrue to me, considering that in his post he

quoted the response where you responded to his argument.

Now, is it possible that he was confused by the post and thought that you didn't respond to his points? Yes. Do I find it likely, not really. Seems like a potentially legitimate scumtell, and I'd reccomend keeping an eye on him.

well he obviously fooled you. for one thing, I said that he'd be a detriment to scumhunting if he continued to act this way once the game started, and he responded as if I'd said that he'd been a detriment to scumhunting already.

How exactly will BM be a detriment to scumhunting once the game starts? Although I disagree with his plan for a treaty, it's rather obvious that it has kick-started conversation and quite plausibly the reactions will help us later on in the game. He has made various responses, and overall seems very pro-discussion. Although you did say that he will be a detriment to scum-hunting once the game started, you were implying that the way he was acting now is detrimental to scumhunting, and I'm not sure that I see why at the moment.

his response was close enough to my point to pass a cursory inspection, but it was slanted to present a viewpoint that favoured him.

Well yeah, if somebody makes a response to another person, the response is going to be from their POV, and most likely favor them. I guess I don't completely understand where exactly you are coming from here.

Ok, i just wondered. Because, one of the benefits of having no life, and watching this game all day, is that i can see when people are online and viewing the thread. And i noticed you on ALOT, without posting. Of course, reading quietly isn't a crime. Just thought i'd mention it, to set a precedent.

BM

Yeah, that does happen. It was especially common last night, considering that all that was going on was discussion of you and the treaty, and you were online, so I didn't really see any need to post. If the discussion isn't something that I can answer with certainty, and it isn't a response to a post of mine, I'll most likely just read it, maybe take a couple notes, and then move on. I'll try to keep it to a minimum however.

[Untitled]

I don't think that the game starts until we have a sufficient number of confirmed players. I think this explains a lot of our differences. if the game

had

started then my stating an intent to vote you on page 8 might be interpreted as wanting to lynch you. since it hasn't, that's not a safe assumption (though this hasn't stopped you and petergriffin from making it). likewise, disliking your line of argument does not equal cutting off discussion.

I've already explained the problem I have with you, bm: you've taken up a massive amount of space on an argument/theory that I see as useless.

I hadn't really said anything to you when you decided to take up a personal vendetta against me. Why is that?

what kind of question is that? "I didn't do anything to you, why are you attacking me?" is not an argument that belongs in mafia.

But of course, i'm sorry i've been such a detriment to scumhunting so far, what with my minimal contributions, and *shudder* SENSE OF HUMOUR.

Why don't you, erm, gimme a shout when you've nailed the entirety of the scum, single-handedly?

in fairness, I think I slightly exaggerated your dodging in my mind because the last part of your previous post (quoted above) left me with that impression. the first point is not what I said (as noted previously) and the second point is an invalid and irrelevant argument. I don't have to be the world's best scumhunter to know a bad argument when I see one.

[Korts]

I've already explained the problem I have with you, bm: you've taken up a massive amount of space on an argument/theory that I see as useless.

Do we have a limited amount of space, perchance?

[Battle Mage]

I don't think that the game starts until we have a sufficient number of confirmed players. I think this explains a lot of our differences. if the game

had

started then my stating an intent to vote you on page 8 might be interpreted as wanting to lynch you. since it hasn't, that's not a safe assumption (though this hasn't stopped you and petergriffin from making it). likewise, disliking your line of argument does not equal cutting off discussion.

It seems a pretty safe assumption in my mind, as much as a vote is deemed to be an intent to lynch, so is an intent to vote an intent to lynch.

I've already explained the problem I have with you, bm: you've taken up a massive amount of space on an argument/theory that I see as useless.

Then don't read it. Nobody is forced to read anything in the game. Personally i dont see why they wouldnt. But if people will skim, they will skim regardless of how much content we actually have. If you really feel bad about the amount of space i've used, i'm sure you can find a way of removing some of the memory used by the site. Maybe you can request the deletion of your account?
If you don't want an active game, then you don't want a game with me in it. It's as simple as that. The fact is, this discussion has made this game different from any other start of a game, in that we all have an OPINION. Even the random voting stage doesnt always provide that. Tell me that getting us off the mark early is a bad thing.

I hadn't really said anything to you when you decided to take up a personal vendetta against me. Why is that?

what kind of question is that? "I didn't do anything to you, why are you attacking me?" is not an argument that belongs in mafia.

It is when you make ad hom attacks with nothing logical to back them up.
Your problem with me is that i post alot. Big whoop. Now are you going to even bother TRYING to explain why that is scummy?

[quote-"Untitled"]

But of course, i'm sorry i've been such a detriment to scumhunting so far, what with my minimal contributions, and *shudder* SENSE OF HUMOUR.

Why don't you, erm, gimme a shout when you've nailed the entirety of the scum, single-handedly?

in fairness, I think I slightly exaggerated your dodging in my mind because the last part of your previous post (quoted above) left me with that impression. the first point is not what I said (as noted previously) and the second point is an invalid and irrelevant argument. I don't have to be the world's best scumhunter to know a bad argument when I see one.[/quote]

Well, i'm impressed you can admit when you are wrong. That puts you one step ahead of me. Next time maybe you could go 1 better, and not come up with the bad argument in the first place?

BM

[Battle Mage]

I've already explained the problem I have with you, bm: you've taken up a massive amount of space on an argument/theory that I see as useless.

Do we have a limited amount of space, perchance?

Don't mock! I think it's really sweet that she's so considerate of our gracious root admin Mith. I might even reccommend her as a mod. So, NOBLE!

BM

[PeterGriffin]

if the game

had

started then my stating an intent to vote you on page 8 might be interpreted as wanting to lynch you. since it hasn't, that's not a safe assumption (though this hasn't stopped you and petergriffin from making it).

The suddenness of the want to vote BM is interesting however.

likewise, disliking your line of argument does not equal cutting off discussion.

ok, if the posts after mine are any indication then I don't need to read back.

somebody wake me when we're actually playing the game

.

Belittling of the current topic of discussion.

exactly, we're still in pre-game and you've already managed to

start an argument with several people over something that's pretty much useless for determining alignment

. that and the fact that you apparently think it's hilarious to get people riled over nothing. unless you change your behaviour once the game starts, I can't see you being anything other than a detriment to our scumhunting.

Dismissal of the current topic of discussion without providing an alternative. Since you refuse to give an idea as to what we would talk about if we following your advice and stop discussing the treaty issue, it does seem like you're cutting off discussion.

I hadn't really said anything to you when you decided to take up a personal vendetta against me. Why is that?

what kind of question is that? "I didn't do anything to you, why are you attacking me?" is not an argument that belongs in mafia.

Well actually, it kind of is when you don't give logical reasoning for the placement of your vote. People are going to be curious as to the reasoning of said vote. When you make statements like these-

how many more confirms before I can vote for battle mage?

I like a good argument, but this isn't a good argument. if it were, you'd be responding to things that I actually post instead of constructing an opposing position based on what makes you look best.

in any case, there's no need for me to get angry with you when

I have an alternative means of expressing my feelings so readily available to me - at least I will once a couple more people confirm

You continue to threaten to vote BM once all the players have confirmed, yet you have yet to give an honestly solid reason as to why. Therefore, BM's question doesn't seem particularly out of place.

[Untitled]

I don't think that the game starts until we have a sufficient number of confirmed players. I think this explains a lot of our differences. if the game

had

started then my stating an intent to vote you on page 8 might be interpreted as wanting to lynch you. since it hasn't, that's not a safe assumption (though this hasn't stopped you and petergriffin from making it). likewise, disliking your line of argument does not equal cutting off discussion.

It seems a pretty safe assumption in my mind, as much as a vote is deemed to be an intent to lynch, so is an intent to vote an intent to lynch.

is a vote on page 1 an intent to lynch? because (as I explained in the post you quoted) that's all that I see it as.

I've already explained the problem I have with you, bm: you've taken up a massive amount of space on an argument/theory that I see as useless.

Then don't read it. Nobody is forced to read anything in the game. Personally i dont see why they wouldnt. But if people will skim, they will skim regardless of how much content we actually have. If you really feel bad about the amount of space i've used, i'm sure you can find a way of removing some of the memory used by the site. Maybe you can request the deletion of your account?
If you don't want an active game, then you don't want a game with me in it. It's as simple as that. The fact is, this discussion has made this game different from any other start of a game, in that we all have an OPINION. Even the random voting stage doesnt always provide that. Tell me that getting us off the mark early is a bad thing.

you're strawmanning me, I never said that starting early was a bad thing. I said that this particular argument is pointless and absurd. filling the thread with nonsense makes it harder for everybody else to stay on-topic, hence I see it as being an impediment to finding scum in the game proper.

I hadn't really said anything to you when you decided to take up a personal vendetta against me. Why is that?

what kind of question is that? "I didn't do anything to you, why are you attacking me?" is not an argument that belongs in mafia.

It is when you make ad hom attacks with nothing logical to back them up.
Your problem with me is that i post alot. Big whoop. Now are you going to even bother TRYING to explain why that is scummy?

1. I don't recall making any ad hom attacks on you.
2. saying that my problem with you is that you post too much is a gross over-simplification of my position.
3. even if that was my position, I never said you were scummy, just that I wanted to vote you.

But of course, i'm sorry i've been such a detriment to scumhunting so far, what with my minimal contributions, and *shudder* SENSE OF HUMOUR.

Why don't you, erm, gimme a shout when you've nailed the entirety of the scum, single-handedly?

in fairness, I think I slightly exaggerated your dodging in my mind because the last part of your previous post (quoted above) left me with that impression. the first point is not what I said (as noted previously) and the second point is an invalid and irrelevant argument. I don't have to be the world's best scumhunter to know a bad argument when I see one.

Well, i'm impressed you can admit when you are wrong. That puts you one step ahead of me. Next time maybe you could go 1 better, and not come up with the bad argument in the first place?

that was a redirect, not a retraction. feel free to answer my actual point at your convenience. I may have overstated it before, but the above post definitely makes me feel like I assessed your playstyle correctly.

[Untitled]

if the game

had

started then my stating an intent to vote you on page 8 might be interpreted as wanting to lynch you. since it hasn't, that's not a safe assumption (though this hasn't stopped you and petergriffin from making it).

The suddenness of the want to vote BM is interesting however.

I fail to see how this is related to wanting to lynch him. surely a fast, unreasoned vote early in the game is

less

likely to reflect a genuine desire to lynch somebody?

likewise, disliking your line of argument does not equal cutting off discussion.

ok, if the posts after mine are any indication then I don't need to read back.

somebody wake me when we're actually playing the game

.

Belittling of the current topic of discussion.

exactly, we're still in pre-game and you've already managed to

start an argument with several people over something that's pretty much useless for determining alignment

. that and the fact that you apparently think it's hilarious to get people riled over nothing. unless you change your behaviour once the game starts, I can't see you being anything other than a detriment to our scumhunting.

Dismissal of the current topic of discussion without providing an alternative. Since you refuse to give an idea as to what we would talk about if we following your advice and stop discussing the treaty issue, it does seem like you're cutting off discussion.

it's still pre-game, we don't need to have an in-depth conversation about

anything

. if we were half way through day 1 and I'd done what you say I've done then you might have a case for me cutting off discussion, but we're nowhere near that point.

I hadn't really said anything to you when you decided to take up a personal vendetta against me. Why is that?

what kind of question is that? "I didn't do anything to you, why are you attacking me?" is not an argument that belongs in mafia.

Well actually, it kind of is when you don't give logical reasoning for the placement of your vote. People are going to be curious as to the reasoning of said vote. When you make statements like these-

how many more confirms before I can vote for battle mage?

I like a good argument, but this isn't a good argument. if it were, you'd be responding to things that I actually post instead of constructing an opposing position based on what makes you look best.

in any case, there's no need for me to get angry with you when

I have an alternative means of expressing my feelings so readily available to me - at least I will once a couple more people confirm

You continue to threaten to vote BM once all the players have confirmed, yet you have yet to give an honestly solid reason as to why. Therefore, BM's question doesn't seem particularly out of place.

yes it does, it's reverse OMGUS. "I didn't attack you, therefore your attack on me is unjustified" is not a logical argument. I explained the reasons for my statements, and they don't rely in any way on personal interactions with battle mage. in fact, the two have next to nothing to do with each other, which is why this question from bm is so off base.

[StrangerCoug]

yes it does, it's reverse OMGUS.

Reverse OMGUS? What do you mean?

[Cephrir]

I fail to see how this is related to wanting to lynch him. surely a fast, unreasoned vote early in the game is less likely to reflect a genuine desire to lynch somebody?

It's kinda different since we've had almost 10 pages of discussion already. Day 1 votes won't be nearly so random as they normally are.

[cerebus3]

Wow, I am like 6 pages behind, and it is only the pre-game. Is any of this worth reading or is it all banter?

[Untitled]

omgus is "you're only voting me because I attacked you". reverse omgus is "why are you voting me when I didn't attack you?"

(afaik it's not an official term, it's just intended to illustrate my point)

I fail to see how this is related to wanting to lynch him. surely a fast, unreasoned vote early in the game is less likely to reflect a genuine desire to lynch somebody?

It's kinda different since we've had almost 10 pages of discussion already. Day 1 votes won't be nearly so random as they normally are.

by "unreasoned" I mean that minimal reasoning is provided with the vote, not that the vote is random. I might agree with you in general, except that a majority of the 10 pages so far is useless for determining alignment. votes won't be random, but they'll be based on thin cases at best.

[cerebus3]

Things I am not sure I should just laugh at or should note for later:

So, nhat, are you planning to actually provide content after the game starts, or is every post going to be like this? Your other post was also just a pointless jab at BM's teaty.

Things that I will vote for:

in short, you're an annoying distraction and you're going to get in the town's way if you keep up with this crap.

scum hiding in the pact is bad.

I only really read this because it was bold. It would be blatantly obvious if anyone tried to divest themselves of responsibility because of the pact. (in fact, I would go so far as to postulate that the people

not

in on the pack are the ones who should be watched for hiding. Anyone outside of the pact that tries to blindly follow it should be scrutinized.)

Erm... I got to about post 150 before I was buried under all of the big posts, but from what I have read the award for scummiest pre-game shenanigans goes to.... Untitled! Is this old news for the people who are actually keeping up?

[OpposedForce]

Still here. This game moves way too fast (Damn people were still in confirmation stage :/) I still have my opposition to the pact and stand by it and no matter the argument it's not going anywhere (especially with BM) Post my thoughts later.

[nhat]

Look, everthing boils down to BM, in jest, developing a pact of sorts, and overanxious cats took it upon themselves to blow it way out of proportion. BM kept the facade because, from my experience with him, he's a feather ruffler, having a laugh at how a lot of you dove right into a pool of horseshit, with PBPA and quote pyramids and all that.